1. India, Pakistan, and Modifying the Indus Waters Treaty
Introduction:
- The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) was signed in 1960 between India and Pakistan under the mediation of the World Bank.
- India issued a formal notice in August 2024, seeking to modify the IWT in accordance with Article XII of the treaty.
- The move raises concerns related to the increasing domestic water demands and the need to develop clean energy while addressing India’s emission goals.
- The notice also mentions the impact of cross-border terrorism on the smooth operation of the treaty.
Key Provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty:
- The treaty divides the Indus Basin into eastern and western rivers.
- Eastern rivers (India’s rights): Ravi, Beas, Sutlej.
- Western rivers (Pakistan’s rights): Indus, Jhelum, Chenab.
- Article XII lays down strict conditions for modification of the treaty, requiring the ratification by both countries, which has proved difficult in previous cases (e.g., Kishenganga dispute).
Divergent Approaches:
- India’s stance (upper riparian): Focuses on optimum utilization of water resources, considering population growth and development.
- Pakistan’s stance (lower riparian): Advocates for uninterrupted flow of water, aiming to safeguard its agricultural needs.
- This divergence in interpretation has been a key reason for disputes under the IWT, particularly in hydropower development projects initiated by India.
Challenges in Managing Resources:
- India has 33 hydropower projects planned or under construction on the western tributaries, allowed by the treaty but requiring a minimum flow to Pakistan.
- Transboundary effects of these projects need to be assessed through Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), as per international standards.
- The ICJ’s ruling in the Pulp Mills case highlights the need for EIA in projects with potential transboundary impacts, such as the reduction in water flow due to climate change.
Role of Customary International Law: Even though the IWT does not explicitly cover provisions related to no harm or environmental assessments, customary international law obliges the riparian states to avoid significant harm and protect the shared watercourse.
Suggestions for Way Forward:
- Considering the lack of trust between India and Pakistan, renegotiating the IWT will be challenging.
- Using the treaty’s Joint Commission and other cooperative avenues could be a pragmatic approach.
- Establishing mutual agreements through Article VII for joint engineering and infrastructure projects can help in mitigating water variability due to climate change.
Conclusion:
- Modifying the IWT is critical given the growing water scarcity, population pressures, and the climate change crisis affecting the Indus Basin.
- Ensuring cooperation between India and Pakistan, backed by international law, will be crucial for the sustainable management of the shared Indus water resources.
Mains Practice Question: |
1. “The Indus Waters Treaty has successfully withstood bilateral tensions between India and Pakistan but faces new challenges from climate change and regional politics.” Discuss the relevance of the treaty in the current geopolitical context, suggesting measures for its renegotiation and adaptation. (250 words) |
2. Upcoming COP 29 and pending Issues
Introduction:
- The New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance is set to be a major focus of COP29, termed as a “finance COP”, scheduled in Baku, Azerbaijan, from November 11 to 22, 2024.
- NCQG is mandated under Article 9 of the Paris Agreement, aiming to address the “needs and priorities” of developing countries.
- COP29 will decide the future framework for climate finance, amidst unresolved differences on key issues among nations.
Unresolved Issues:
- Differing interests between developed and developing countries have led to major debates on:
- Structure and scope of NCQG.
- Sources of finance and its distribution.
- Time frames and predictability of finance.
- Developing countries’ stance:
- They argue for a larger share of climate finance to adapt to and mitigate climate impacts.
- They demand quantitative targets, focusing on grants, concessional loans, and public finance, with predictable time frames (5 or 10 years).
- Developed countries’ stance:
- Focus on innovation, private financing, and flexible, multi-layered
- They support outcome-driven strategies like low-emission and climate resilience projects.
Major Concerns:
- The $100 billion annual climate finance pledge, originally set for 2020, has not been met, leading to distrust and delays in climate action plans for developing countries.
- There is concern over the growing climate debt and unequal distribution of financial burdens, with much of the available climate finance being diverted to mitigation rather than adaptation strategies crucial for developing countries.
Issues with Expanding Contributor Base:
- Developed nations proposed expanding the contributor base to include countries with high emissions or high GDP per capita (e.g., China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia).
- Developing countries argue this move shifts responsibility away from historical emitters and undermines the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities.
- There are ambiguities about whether contributions will be additional or drawn from existing development finance pools.
Role of Climate Finance:
- The Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) updated the definition of climate finance as reducing emissions, building adaptive capacity, and enhancing resilience.
- However, discussions point to the vulnerability of developing countries in accessing funds from entities like the Green Climate Fund and Global Environment Facility due to complex bureaucratic processes.
Challenges in Delivering Climate Finance:
- Countries like Switzerland and Canada pushed to include additional contributors, but developing nations view this as shifting responsibility.
- There is also a lack of clarity about whether additional finance will be dedicated to adaptation or mitigation.
- With climate finance increasingly focusing on mitigation projects, adaptation projects, which are crucial for climate-vulnerable nations, continue to be underfunded.
Conclusion:
- COP29 and the negotiations in Baku will be pivotal in addressing the distrust between developing and developed nations.
- The future of climate finance depends on whether NCQG can meet the specific needs of vulnerable nations, balancing between adaptation, mitigation, and development.
- The challenge remains in bridging the trust deficit, ensuring transparency in finance delivery, and enhancing climate resilience through equitable funding.
Mains Practice Questions: |
1. “Climate finance has been a major point of contention in international climate negotiations. Analyze the significance of the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance and the challenges it faces in achieving equity in climate action.” (250 words) |
